Hosted Pro MCP server for RevoGrid DataGrid docs, examples, feature checks, and migration guidance.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 2.8/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct scope: examples, migration notes, feature matrix, and general search. The general search tool overlaps with the more specific tools, but the specific tools are clearly labeled as 'only' or targeted, reducing confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase snake_case: find_examples, get_migration_notes, resolve_feature_matrix, search_revogrid_docs. The verbs are distinct and match the tool purpose.
Four tools is a well-scoped set for a specialized documentation/helper server. Each tool covers a specific need without excessive granularity, making the server easy to navigate.
The tool surface covers the core needs for working with RevoGrid: finding examples, understanding migrations, checking feature availability, and general documentation search. No obvious gaps or dead ends.
find_examplesFind RevoGrid ExamplesAInspectSearch runnable or live RevoGrid examples only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| surface | No | ||
| version | No | ||
| framework | No | ||
| requiresPro | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the behavioral qualifier 'runnable or live,' which helps set expectations about the type of examples returned. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose the return format, whether results are filtered by the 'requiresPro' flag, or any other side effects. It is minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly written sentence with no wasted words. Every word adds meaning, and the use of 'only' reinforces the scope. It is effectively concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It does not mention how parameters like 'surface' or 'version' influence the search, nor what the response looks like. The tool is simple, but the description leaves too much for the agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters. It only mentions 'RevoGrid examples,' which gives a vague hint about the 'query' parameter, but crucial parameters like 'surface,' 'framework,' and 'requiresPro' remain undefined. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches for 'runnable or live RevoGrid examples' and adds 'only' to emphasize scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_revogrid_docs (docs) and get_migration_notes (notes). The verb 'search' plus the resource 'RevoGrid examples' is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'only' strongly implies that this tool is for examples specifically, not general docs or migration notes, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_migration_notesGet Migration NotesCInspectGet upgrade notes between RevoGrid versions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| framework | No | ||
| toVersion | Yes | ||
| fromVersion | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It indicates a read operation but does not explain what the output contains (e.g., list of changes, severity, structure) or behavior on invalid versions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise (one sentence), the description is too terse—missing necessary context for a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the output looks like (e.g., markdown, list) or how it differs from similar sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what 'fromVersion' and 'toVersion' represent (e.g., format, range) or how 'framework' affects results.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves upgrade notes between versions, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_revogrid_docs', which might also contain migration information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
resolve_feature_matrixResolve RevoGrid FeatureCInspectResolve whether a RevoGrid feature exists, whether it is Pro, and where to learn it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | ||
| framework | No | ||
| featureName | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions resolving existence and Pro status but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The description is too brief for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 15 words with no wasted words. However, it is slightly underspecified, but this is a matter of completeness rather than conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. A more detailed description is needed for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (version, framework, featureName). The agent gains no additional meaning from the description beyond the parameter names and types in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool resolves whether a RevoGrid feature exists, its Pro status, and learning resources. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like find_examples, get_migration_notes, and search_revogrid_docs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_revogrid_docsSearch RevoGrid DocsCInspectSearch docs, API reference, examples, and migration notes for RevoGrid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| surface | No | ||
| version | No | ||
| docTypes | No | ||
| framework | No | ||
| requiresPro | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only says 'Search docs...' but fails to disclose any traits like read-only nature, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load key information or organize content for quick scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It provides minimal contextual completeness for a tool with such complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter descriptions. The tool's description also offers no explanation of the 7 parameters (e.g., limit, surface, version, docTypes, framework, requiresPro), leaving the agent with no semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches docs, API reference, examples, and migration notes for RevoGrid. It has a specific verb and resource scope, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like find_examples or get_migration_notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., find_examples for specific examples, get_migration_notes for migration notes). The description only states what the tool does, with no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!